The present quote and several others in the post are quotations, I am sure, that Msgr. Schuler stated in order to refute.

Concerning the matter of the Mozart Masses, it is not quite correct to say that they are merely in a secular style. There are several aspects of the classical Viennese Masses which need to be mentioned. While they make use of idioms common to operatic music, they also have characteristics unique to sacred music: 1) They are in the Latin language, an element that sets them apart as sacred; 2) They make considerable use of the fugal style, the stylus ecclesiasticus, the style inherited from classical polyphony, especially in the conclusions of the Gloria and Credo, but also elsewhere—think of the Kyrie of the Mozart Requiem, for example; 3) Operatic works make extensive use of the da capo, that is, after a contrasting section, the first section of an aria is repeated; this is never used in the Viennese classical Masses; 4) There is much presentation of the sacred text in simultaneous choral declamation, that is, the whole choir declaims the text together; this is rarely heard in opera, rather when all the characters sing in an operatic ensemble, each character sings his own text. Still, to some the presence of some operatic style may be unacceptable; the question is whether the secular style has been assimilated into a sacred entity; in the best of these works, I submit, it has.

I believe that his commitment and defense were based upon their status as a great cultural and living liturgical heritage. This is something he had from his Tyrolian roots, as well as his experience of on-going traditions in such cities as Vienna, Munich, Budapest, etc.

The Viennese Masses are a continuous cultural custom of a certain sphere of Europe. Parishes in the US that draw most of their parishioners from descendents of that sphere might have a claim on continuing that custom if it indeed has been a living one here. But plopping that custom down new in a place where it has not been a living legacy is not a good example of continuity.

Salieri

But Gregorian chant and polyphony are expressly held out for esteem and preservation by the Church's current documents; the Viennese Masses not so (being the subject of more conflicted commentary and reception, historically speaking). The point being one has more standing to create the Gregorian/polyphonic praxis anew in places where it never took hold; not so much the Viennese Masses without it seeming more like a other forms of inorganic, inapposite inculturation so-called.

I, too, find Prof. Mahrt's reasons above most compelling.

On the critical side of things, I have a hunch that many object to the orchestral masses not only because of stylistic elements (sounding operatic to some) but also, and perhaps moreover, because of the length of each movement.

This is what I hear from many celebrants...

I realize that orchestral masses are different as regards time, but the length is perceived as problematic/out of proportion in enough of the repertoire that undue length has become associated with these great works.

MACW

Indeed the Viennese Masses were designed for the old Low Mass where the clerics continued their work, as it were, while the musicians played on. It does not fit well with the OF except in places where there is such a long living cultural legacy that the fit issues of that sort are perceived less. Except that the offertory, the OF is not designed to have that parallel action but is more expressly linear (it should be remembered that the lack of such linearity in the old Low Mass was a concession, not really normative, in origin).

I dunno, Liam.
You seem to be forgetting the Solemn Mass and Missa Cantata in the EF. Orchestral masses were (and are) used in those settings quite often. Both allow for a good deal of parallel action.

I have come to find excess linearity in the OF rather limiting, even overly didactic, and I haven't heard a great reason for it's preference.

Given that the most recent council clearly reaffirmed the norm of a sung mass, flexibility is needed for practical and prayerful liturgical celebrations. Case in point: the choral Sanctus.

IMO, it's still open to much debate.
For one thing, it was long considered a hymn of both priest and people, as are all parts of the ordinary, before the council, too. So I don't see the eccesiology changing much.

It doesn't strike me as coherent to promote our musical treasures "of inestimable value", and then to claim that some of the royal gems of said treasures should not be used. Anyone who has studied and sung polyphonic masses can attest to the Sanctus most often being the compositional jewel of the mass.

This thread isn't about the choral Sanctus, so sorry for opening up the subject.

I've actually begun to read the article, which is fascinating. From the first few pages, I'm inclined to strongly disagree with Schuler on many important points. But it's still interesting to see these points being made IN THE MOMENT!

He would have been an interesting character for the forums...

Salieri, I think you shortchange the influence of Tra le sollicitudine at the time. It didn't much affect the Cecilian parishes, as they were already doing it. But there was a lot of change (and resistance to change) in the big East Coast parishes. It pretty much ended the career of RoSewig, for instance (but RoSewig masses were in parish use in Cleveland until Vatican II.)

Trying to figure out who did what when and fold it into a comprehensive picture is a bit of a musicological puzzle. I've been doing some poking into online newspapers, particularly the Cleveland Plain Dealer. Up to the Civil War, and esp. in Baltimore (where the action was), the go-to Mass for big festivities was the so-called "Mozart's 12th Mass". From the 1870s on, the PD reports the Christmas and Easter music at the big Catholic and Episcopal churches, and we get Weber, Haydn, Mercadante (and still the "Mozart"). Sometimes we get explicit mention of an orchestra; more often not. We get mentions of names of 2-3 singers on a particular voice part, in a context which makes it appear that this is the choir, rather than soloists. Of course, reports of Easter tell us what we might expect to hear on Easter, not on a random Sunday. I'd like to get back digging at some point, to at least be able to draw a picture for the Diocese of Cleveland.